Madshrimps Forum Madness - x264 HD Benchmark Released

Madshrimps Forum Madness (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/)

- WebNews (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/)

- - x264 HD Benchmark Released (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/x264-hd-benchmark-released-42738/)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke (Post 166268)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquid3D (Post 166260)

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 :)

@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 (Post 166256)

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by graysky (Post 167552)

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