Video encoding is based on the amount of cores, and clock speed, it does not have much to do with cache, or a die shrink. That is why Core i7 is better at encoding than Q9650, because it can process more threads, and can has good clock speed (specially since you can overclock it to 4+ Ghz).
depends on your frequency as well as the program...
I know clock for clock there will be just a minor difference, but if your getting a 9650 to 4.0 and a 66 at 3.6 it will shed some time off overall
stock vs stock the 9650 would be a bit faster as well... But we are talking shaving 3 - 5 minutes of a 60+ minute project so... I am not sure exactly what type of encoding you were speaking of, but if the program is optimized for multi threaded tasking it should shine on any Q
As mentioned above the i7 with 4 HT cores is really the way to go for an encoding machine....
You would see a bigger improvement going with an i7 over a q9650. You q6600 is already clocked a 4ghz and with the q9650 you probably won't get it much higher. I do a lot of video encoding and editing (avi -> avi and mpeg2 -> avi) and my q6600 gets the job done pretty quick.
Originally Posted by gnolnats
I went from q6600 to q9550 and don't see very much difference at all rendering dvd with convertxtodvd. About the same speed (between 8 and 9x usually) and same time to complete.
What about in gaming do you notice a difference at all in FPS? Because I have a eye on getting a Q9550 maybe but it depends if its worth it or not.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!