x264 HD Benchmark Released - Page 2

jmke · 18th March 2008, 19:44

maybe take averages from Pass1 and Pass2, keeping 2 numbers in total? would reduce clutter and increase readability

6th April 2008, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

maybe take averages from Pass1 and Pass2, keeping 2 numbers in total? would reduce clutter and increase readability

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquid3D

Here's a quick chart with all data.

The articloe is finished it's this I need help on. I deciced to forgo ViMArk until next (the DDR3 Round-Up).

Can you email / explain which figures you want me to use from this data?

Guys, the benchmark wasn't meant to be a standalone thing... if you run it and then post your results, I enter the data into the ongoing excel sheet and update the main table.

@Liquid3D - great dataset dude. I'll get them all in there if you can provide me with some extra info on that test system (the info I need is described on the techarp page towards the bottom).

It'd be cool to see you guys use my benchmark in your reviews

P.S. I just discovered this place via a google search for something unrelated, otherwise I would've replied sooner

6th April 2008, 11:49

@Liquid3D - with results this fast I'm thinking you actually ran the older SDTV benchmark. Even dual quad Xeon Skulltrail system didn't score into the 160's on the HD test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquid3D

I'm still alittle confused by this as well. This is what I have running about ten different settings;

9x333FSB Q6600 P35C-DS3R Patriot DDR3-1600 running 1333MHz 7-7-7-20

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 160.83 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 160.59 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 160.15 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 160.59 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 161.05 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.64 fps, 1829.42 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.77 fps, 1829.16 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.66 fps, 1829.24 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.56 fps, 1829.36 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.68 fps, 1829.15 kb/s

Next Q6600 7x400FSB Patriot DDR3-1600 running at 1600MHz 7-7-7-20

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 154.82 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 155.25 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 155.26 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 155.47 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 155.47 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 40.24 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 40.24 fps, 1829.31 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 40.32 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 40.24 fps, 1829.45 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 40.19 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

Shouldn't the FPS be better in the latter benchamrk?

jmke · 6th April 2008, 13:14

used here

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=6 71

7th April 2008, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by graysky

Guys, the benchmark wasn't meant to be a standalone thing... if you run it and then post your results, I enter the data into the ongoing excel sheet and update the main table.

@Liquid3D - great dataset dude. I'll get them all in there if you can provide me with some extra info on that test system (the info I need is described on the techarp page towards the bottom).

It'd be cool to see you guys use my benchmark in your reviews

P.S. I just discovered this place via a google search for something unrelated, otherwise I would've replied sooner

Did you still need that? The info provided in these benchmarks derives from the Gigabyte P35C-DS3R (F10 Rev.1.0) Windows XP SP2 OS, I will be running the DDR3 round-up on a Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 with the same Q6600 (95W TDP SLACR) processor, the same BFG 8800Ultra, and Seagate Barracuda 167GB SATA-II

18th March 2008, 19:44	#11
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	maybe take averages from Pass1 and Pass2, keeping 2 numbers in total? would reduce clutter and increase readability __________________

6th April 2008, 13:14	#14
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	used here http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=6 71 __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat benchmark released - download mirrors	jmke	WebNews	0	19th November 2009 09:10
PhysX FluidMark Benchmark Released	jmke	WebNews	0	17th August 2008 15:27
HardwareOC Crysis Benchmark v1.3 Released	jmke	WebNews	0	22nd May 2008 12:49
3DMark Vantage DX10 Benchmark Released	jmke	WebNews	2	28th April 2008 22:51
SP2 for SiSoftware Sandra XII/2008 released	jmke	WebNews	0	8th April 2008 16:49
SP1 for SiSoftware Sandra XII released	jmke	WebNews	0	14th December 2007 09:11
Rydermark benchmark inches closer to release	jmke	WebNews	2	20th February 2007 17:30
RealStorm Global Illumination Benchmark 2006 Released	jmke	WebNews	0	6th March 2006 17:09
Futuremark Begins Development of New Vector Graphics Benchmark	jmke	WebNews	0	15th February 2006 09:42
Futuremark debuts smartphone benchmark	jmke	WebNews	0	11th July 2004 21:51